Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sam Morris / Las Vegas Sun
Metro crime scene investigators, officers and detectives mill about the entrance of the Costco store in Summerlin after the shooting July 10, 2010.
Monday, Jan. 10, 2011 | 9:32 p.m.
Related Document (.pdf)
Sun archives
- Erik Scott family buys 4 billboard ads seeking Costco video (10-28-10)
- Police officers found justified in Erik Scott shooting; family plans lawsuit (9-28-10)
- Detective: Erik Scott had pain medicines from several doctors (9-27-10)
- Witnesses give conflicting accounts of Costco police shooting (9-25-10)
- Shoppers recount police shooting outside Costco (9-24-2010)
- Officer in Costco shooting says man raised gun, didn't know it was in holster (9-23-2010)
- Inquest testimony focuses on Erik Scott’s use of prescription drugs (9-22-10)
The family of Erik Scott, who was shot and killed by Metro Police outside a Summerlin Costco store in July, has dropped the business from its federal lawsuit, family attorney Ross Goodman said Monday night.
Goodman said he believes the federal case against Metro Police and Clark County is stronger than the case against Costco. But Goodman said Costco and the Scott family could still meet in court.
“The Scott family has preserved the right to hold Costco accountable in state court within the two-year statute of limitations,” he said.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for Nevada on Oct. 28, originally named as defendants the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Sheriff Doug Gillespie, officers William Mosher, Joshua Stark and Thomas Mendiola, as well as Costco Wholesale Corp. and Costco security officer Shai Lierly. The lawsuit will move forward against Metro officials and the police department.
The three officers shot and killed Scott on July 10 outside Costco after authorities say he pointed a gun at an officer. A Clark County coroner’s inquest jury ruled in September after six days of testimony that the three officers were justified in the shooting.
The suit alleges there have been "numerous prior incidents in which Metro officers engaged in unreasonable seizures and the use of excessive, including lethal, force," and claims Gillespie has acted with "deliberate indifference" in failing to adequately train, supervise and discipline officers concerning unreasonable seizures and the use of excessive force.
Metro's policy is not to comment on litigation.
I feel sorry for the Scott family and I hope I never have to face anything like they have. I will say this until I can no longer speak. Erik caused his own death, along with his so called girlfriend. If they sue (which it looks like they are) I hope the City, State, County counter sues them. I see no winner in this case but I know who the losers are.
Aaronboy...I feel you are wrong. The community on the whole is fed up with Metro's "shoot first and cover up later" attitude. This is not the first incident where armed/unarmed citizens were shot and then died from their injuries for no good reason other then the policemen responding were poorly trained. We'll see how the courts feel. I also know a loser when I see one!
scott family is f%$$#king nuts to sue costco. losers.
Unsubstantiated comments from anyone not standing in the Scott family's shoes are merely guesses too. This situation should be looked at without prejudice. There are lessons to be learned. Ultimately it could and should benefit all Law Enforcement from a training stand point. In the end, the actions of the LVMPD may be modified which may save someone else's life in the future. I'm sure they did what they thought was necessary at the time, but that does not mean nor guarantee that the training and procedures currently employed are optimal. BTW, I would call anyone's prediction or speculation about an LVMPD officer at Ms. Giffords town meeting unsubstantiated because there is no evidence to accurately show what would have happened.
Tragic, but justified. This lawsuit is a waste of time, money and energy.
White knight can speak for himself. I, as part of the "community" fully support LVMPD.
Aaronboy: Good post.
Well, half the spurious suit is down the drain. That's good. The lesson here? Simple. Don't wave a gun in a police officer's face, don't threaten him/her, obey his/hers orders and live to file a complaint if he/she wronged you, then get on with the rest of your life.
Funny,how when a love one dies, it becomes about the Money they might could get. Sad... forgotten son, oh well lets drag his life before the public. So we can tarnish his memory, but hey we can get money. Now that some kinda of parent. No wonder he was troubled.
I think that Goodman realized that they really don't have a lawsuit at all, but is hoping to get some settlement by filing the suit.
I hope that the Sheriff takes this to trial, and has the Department lawyers issue federal subponeas to the girlfriend. She won't be able to avoid the service of those and if she does, a federal judge will surely issue a material witness warrant and lock her up until she testifies.
When the cops are found not liable, then Metro needs to sue the Scott family and Goodman for the cost of defending this silly suit.
z-white-knight
Get over it aleady. The family has rose colored glasses on and all they can see is $$$$$. Their son had problems and died because of attitude, not because Metro is trigger happy. They are in denial.
Get over it. The family will lose.
where is the girlfriend and why is she hiding? will she blow the scott family law suit to smithereens?
****
Agree. Where was she at the inquest? And yes - she was and is the KEY WITNESS. Her testimony will be detrimental to the family's lawsuit.
Their case against Costco was nonexistant. Their case again Metro is really pretty weak. The chance that they are going to get a unanimous jury to award them something over the death of an armed, belligerent, and crazed induhvidual (at the time of the shooting - we all know he was probably a pretty decent guy otherwise but it doesn't matter) is minimal, to put it nicely.
I wouldn't take this as any more than a tactical move on behalf of Goodman. Why? You can't file a federal civil "color of law" case against Costco--a private sector entity. And initially, that's Goodman's strongest case.
It's fairly obvious that Metro didn't follow appropriate procedures and its' officers have already offered contradictory testimony on the record at the inquest. The federal civil case against Metro will now involve a discovery process and possible trial. Discovery and trial may then result in eliciting additional information that could be helpful in a future civil case against Costco.
Attorneys will always name name the broadest number of defendants and then proceed to drop them simply because you can't add additional defendants to the suit after you file.
They would have lost the Costco lawsuit, since it is difficult to prove negligence. Because of the recent work place shootings the manager and the employee can claim they were following the store procedure to protect the customers. The gist of this case is for his attorney to prove "irrespective of what transpired inside the store that Scott,walked out like any other customer" He might have been a "perceived" threat inside the store but he never was a threat outside. But he was shot and killed for his indiscretions inside the store. The case will end up with monetary settlement like all the other cases but the family did make a dent in the system.
You know what's really sad about this whole thing is it seems to me that Mr Scott decided to end his life by having the cops shoot him,I think he was pushing his luck when he decided to come up against these officers.If you are a gun permit holder then I'm sure the first thing they say is if approached by officers hands straight up in the air,don't bs around around,don't move.I think Mr Scott had to much drugs in his system and pushed his luck,remembering these officers were called into this they didn't go looking for him.
Cops are the biggest gangsters as they give tickets to innocent drivers yet in this case if he would not have been drunk & strapped with a gun at costco none of this would have happened.
The family needs to understand that his complete lack of personal responsibility is what put him in this bad situation.
mk,
Scott didn't end his own life, three "warriors" from Metro did that for him. The recent LVRJ expose on Metro's academy training shows very clearly that cops in this community are trained to view citizens as "combatants" in a "war." Please note, these words aren't mine, but those of the Metro training officers interviewed as part of that series of articles.
The mindset of Metro's cops that day played a much more critical factor in the outcome of events than did any actions taken by Erik Scott. The only people who testified that Mr. Scott was acting at all erratically were the Costco employees. As thew Costco security guard was the individual who contacted Metro, he set the scene into which Metro's officers entered and began to take action.
If not for Shai Lierly's over reactions, Metro wouldn't have had reason to approach Scott as an "armed combatant." He clearly wasn't. Everyone who testified about Scott walking out of the store stated that he wasn't acting at all erratically, that he wasn't threatening anyone, and that they had no idea that he was the subject of all of the commotion until the cops confronted him, with their guns drawn.
There can be no question about the fact that Metro's officers (nee warriors) acted irresponsibly, even though they may have been following their training. I for one am not comfortable with "peace officers" being trained to view me as an enemy. The role of police isn't to engage citizens as combatants on the streets of Las Vegas.
I sincerely believe, especially when considering the thoroughly detailed experiences of cadet Mendiola as described by LVRJ, that Metro needs a thorough house cleaning, and that their training needs a serious revision away from a "warrior mentality" and towards a community service mindset. This lawsuit may pave the way for much needed changes in Metro's operations.
Excellent strategic move on the part of Mr. Goodman. His job is to maximize the damages his clients are awarded.
Costco and their employee aren't off the hook in any way. After Metro settles (with our tax dollars) Costco will follow suit (diminishing the value of my Costco stock.) But none of us will ever know the amount, because the settlements will be confidential, and the headline then will be "Scott family voluntarily dismisses lawsuits."
That's a standard court entry that signals the defendant paid out a monetary settlement, and there are no court files to disclose the amount of the settlement payout.
mk, you apparently didn't watch the coroner's inquest so it would be difficult to have a discussion. Scott didn't decide to end his "life". A Costco employee saw that Scott had a holstered weapon on him and called the police. An order was given to evacuate the store and Scott had already walked past the responding Metro officers towards his car by the time Officer Mosher realized that Scott was the person of interest. Mosher then approached Scott from BEHIND. Scott was not seeking a confrontation. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you can't choose your own facts.
http://thepermit.blogspot.com/
crazy work of fiction by the dad.
You don't suppose that attorney Goodman and the Scott family would prefer to avoid the high priced lawyers that CostCo would be bringing to the table do you?
@ pmmart
That's certainly part of it, but more importantly, Costco has established a reputation as being an honest, fair business that has attracted a huge following, which jurors would note favorably.
On the other hand, Metro has established itself as a gestapo type operation in the eyes of many potential jurors, where the recruits are trained to view the citizens they're sworn to protect as the enemy. And more importantly, in this case, to a jury it's going to be very easy to paint Metro as having no credibility - the example of Gillespie declaring Manor had his lights and siren on, then having to publically state his officers lied, being only one minor example. And Yant's perjury and Metro's failure to deal with it will also be another factor that causes a large seven figure settlement - paid for with our tax dollars.
pmmart. I don't think Walt Cannon is much cheaper than whomever Costco would have hired. You might want to call his office and see how much he gets paid to defend these lawsuits. You might be surprised at how much he makes and how long he's been doing it. Frankly, if you carry a concealed weapon, cause a disturbance in a private business and during the course of that disturbance an employee observes you have that weapon, it is reasonable for that person to suspect that behavior may escalate. Mr. Scott's blatantly aberrant behavior instigated this incident and that's the gravamen of the defense under any circumstances. You can spin the facts any way you want but if he hadn't been ripping open packages in the store and caught the attention of the employees there would have been no incident. But for Mr. Scott's aberrant behavior in the Costco he would have survived the trip.
Summerlin,
You claim that "It's fairly obvious that Metro didn't follow appropriate procedures."
What do you know that the officers at the scene didn't? What procedures are you referring to?
What makes YOU an expert on Metro's procedures in dealing with an armed subject, who is reported to be belligerant and destroy property?
All the officers testified that they saw Scott pull a gun, and that it was pointed at Mosher. How was that testimony "contradictory?"
Keystone,
The training officer at Metro said that officers were in a "war" but with criminals. NOT citizens.
Please don't twist peoples word to suit your agenda.
ALL officers, everywhere are taught to always believe that anyone could at anytime harm them...That is cop 101. ANYONE could be a threat.
That said, I know two of the officers personally, and can say from experience that they are honorable, hardworking family men, who did NOT respond to that call with the intent of killing anyone.
Erik Scott made a decision to carry a gun while under the influence of a lot of drugs (a felony) and when asked to leave the store, became belligerant with the employee, and greatly embellished his military experience "I'm a green beret it's ok," and the girlfriend lied, he's in the military, and is back from Iraq," (he had never been there) and then decided to pull the gun on officers.
No wrongful death here, simply a case of a doped up guy, with delusions of grandeur, who thought he was above the law.
Now sadly his father, who failed to see his childs mental and medical issues while he was alive, is not willing to admit that his son was at fault here.
ghp2006 (Al Morgan):
Police Officer or I should say Peace Officers are never around when you need them. They react and arive after the fact.
Devildog-
Spoken like a true cop. You want to know what procedures huh? How about for starters is it police procedure to tap armed suspects on the shoulder from behind? Or how about tell everyone to exit the store and open fire right where everyone congregated? What about giving the orders of drop it, hands in the air, get on the ground? Is that textbook cop or what? What about searching the body of someone you just shot who you think was armed? Is that not a procedure? How about explaining why the video data was not seized and giving a logical chain of evidence. How about explaining why the police and Public administrator broke into the Mr Scotts home without a warrant hours after he was shot even though they have no jurisdiction when another living resident still exists that they were obviously aware of? Maybe they needed to look for a second gun to plant?
The law is very clear. Pointing a weapon at an officer leaves only one course of action. Officers are trained to preserve their lives and the lives of others. I think any citizen pointing a gun at another, whether they are police or any of us, would make anyone feel that they are in a war zone. There is no room for political correctness when you're looking at a gun barrel. I cannot imagine that this case will be settled in favor of the family. Past incidents have nothing to do with this case if the officers acted in the color of the law- which it appears that they did. In the split seconds that those officers had to make a decision to take action to preserve life, they did the right thing.
@thinkingaboutitall
Im sorry were you there? Did you see him point a gun at officers? Was it the same gun that was in a holster attached to the inside of his pants when he fell?
If you point a weapon at a police officer "Whatta ya going to get" . Duh!
Sounds like a group of losers looking for freebie.
Willis,
First of all , the commands were "Let me see your hands," then a second later, "Get on the ground," then a second later, "Drop it!" The "drop it" was last due to Scott pulling out a gun instead of complying with the other two commands. (I saw the inquest, and listened to the tapes.)
As far as the "tapping" on the shoulder, only 1 person said this, and he was mistaken. Many other witnesses as well as Officer Mosher stated that he never touched Scott and only gave verbal commands.
Yes the store was told to evacuate, because the reports at that time were that the armed man was at the back of the store.
It was unfortunate that there were many bystanders where the shooting took place, but the officers conducted themselves according to policy and law.
As for the Public Administartor, you would need to ask him why they went to Scott's house, and if the police went with them, it was at the request of the administrator.
The bottom line is that if Erik Scott wasn't unlawfully carrying two guns, or if he just complied with the orders of the officers (get on the ground) and kept his hands away from his gun like he was taught in his CCW classes, he would most likely be alive today.
Don't be fooled, Scott family and Costco has already settled. Why doesn't Metro, the sheriff, and officers involved sue the Scott family for their son putting them in a position of having to use deadly force when Erik just had to do was surrender. I'm tire of seeing family sue the police department for something that their sibling does. All Erik had to do was lay on the ground with hands to the side, but he choose to challenge the police.
The family of Erik Scott should sue the pharmacist that sold him all the opiates that he had ingested before he went off in the Costco.
Better yet, the police officers should sue Scott's family for all the grief that he has caused everyone with his behavior.
@devildog
Were you hoping I didnt watch the inquest too bud? Check the transcripts on what commands were given and the order. Per the inquest transcripts as heard on the 911 tape by Officer Mosher...
"Put your hands where I can see them now! Drop it! Get on the ground! Get on the Ground!"
Even if your going to continue to say that it is good cop procedure to give multiple conflicting commands like that, please explain to me how to drop a weapon without reaching for it?
Next I love how you brushed off the witness who claimed to see him tap his shoulder. He was mistaken? You are qualified to decide who was right and wrong that simple? Did you forget that the person was the rentacop Shai? You know the key costco employee who called 911 and testified about his behavior?
Also you are positive that it was the Public Administrator who contacted Metro to help break in? Please explain how he would have known within hours of the shooting if Metro didnt inform him?
Your bottom line is junk. You dont know for a fact that he had two guns on him at the time as the second was "magically" found in the ambulance, maybe after a quick trip from his broken into apartment? And explain to me how his first gun is unlawful which is the only relevant gun in the first place that the police had any knowledge of. He had a CCW for the registered weapon and no judge or jury had judged him to be unable to be in posession of the weapon. Did the cop make that decision based on the way he calmly exited the store and walked past him? Your statement that if he had just complied with orders is a joke. Should he have no complied and done nothing and probably be shot for it or should he have tried to comply and attempt to drop his holstered weapon and be shot for it? Lets check the tape. Wait nevermind the same company that handles costco security footage also has a contract with Metro substations so maybe that can just dissapear huh?
DevilDog, I'll make it simple for you:
1) Mosher told the investigators the day of the shooting that he tapped Scott on the shoulder after he was pointed out by the Costco employee. That's why the DA asked him that, and was perplexed when Mosher said he didn't.
2) NRS 202.257 is clear that possession of a firearm under the influence "to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely exercising actual physical control of a firearm" is a misdemeanor. A Misdemeanor, Not A Felony!
Stop making stuff up to support your Metro buddies. Seriously.
Willis, I can see that no matter what anyone says, you have already made up your mind about the entire incident. So I will not spar with you anymore.
I have spoken to the officers involved, and they are very good people that had to respond to a doped up, gun toting guy, that could not put his hands up.
As far as the public administrator and Scott's house, you obviously know more than anyone else about that.
The inquest is over, the officers were justified in the jury's mind, and according to the majority of people in the county, the Metro is doing a good job, because they overwhelmingly re-elected the Sheriff.
Since you know everything (you must have been on scene from start to finish) why don't you call the DOJ and make a complaint against Metro, they would love to hear from you.
@devildog
Aww did I hurt your lil cop feelings? Im sorry I take it all back since you personally talked to the officers and vouch for them. What was I thinking.
A prohibited person in possession of a firearm is a FELONY.
A prohibited person is: a convicted felon, fugitive from justice, person deemed by a court as mentally ill, an illegal alien and a person who is a habitual drug user. Scott had been using drugs for way too long to be just "under the influence," and many of the drugs were shown to be obtained unlawfully (by doctor shopping)and by obtaining prescriptions by fraud (his girlfriend used stolen prescription pads to obtain drugs.) No wonder she didn't show.
@devildog
Maybe she didn't show up because she was never served to appear? Did you not hear them when they said they never physically served her? Maybe she didn't show up because your swell cop buddies had been pulling her over and ticketing her multiple times for not clearing intersections and 4 miles over the speed limit.
Just so we are clear are you saying if someone doesnt show up to an inquest that means they have something to hide?
Wait a minute...
Isnt that exactly what you and your fellow officers just threatened to do under the new inquest system? You know cuz you would have to answer mean questions?
I guess those 20 witnesses that the DA did not call at the inquest were all full of crap after all
I went to Costco today, I had my membership card, wallet, money and car keys on me, no gun. One never needs a gun to go shopping. I'm not anti gun, but just because one has a ccw permit, doesn't mean you need to carry it with you all the time. And the middle "C" in ccw is "CONCEALED", which aparently it wasn't. I'm sorry for the family's loss, but find no fault with law enforcement, or Costco on this one. One needs to be responsible with their guns 100% of the time, merely continuing to hold it and waving it around after being told to drop it, is not responsible.
I for one always feel safer when a Metro officer is around.
You only think you've seen all of the evidence. No you have not! You only saw the evidence the DA wanted you to see. Wait until the Federal case and then many of you who have supported Metro all along on this are going to have to reformulate your conclusions.
Did you ever think that perhaps the Scott's dropped the lawsuit against Costco in an effort to get at some of the "real" evidence? You don't think a company thinks about it's reputation. Perhaps they saw that there would have been evidence exposed in the Federal trial that may be a bit unsavory for them and thus decided they had better play some ball. I guess we will have to see won't we?
Oh, and for those who keep saying Erik wanted to die and that is why he pulled his weapon out: You are joking right? Yeah, that makes sense. Let me get a Costco membership because I might need this on the other side. Let me get a prescription to-go as well. And by the way, I'll stock up on some groceries and get a few water bottles for a camping trip becuase I plan on doing some camping after I die too.
You are going to see what a farce the Inquest process was when all of the evidence is presented in the Federal case.
If I were Metro, I would be filing charges against the Costco loss prevention cop-wanna-be who called 911 and clearly lied to the dispatcher about Erik having pulled his gun out of his holster before the officers arrived. This set into motion a deadly chain of events that led to an outcome that was disproportionate to the actual threat, or lack of it thereof.
If an officer is going to effect an arrest or detain a potential suspect who may be armed, there should be no opportunity for misunderstanding on the part of the person being detained. You can't have one officer yell "drop it" and then another yell "get on the ground" with commands coming from both front and back and then shoot the individual for not following any one command, all within a few seconds time, particularly when that individual may not have initially known who the officers were yelling at. Remember this, Erik was in a crowd of people, peacefully exiting the store when met by the officers. And the additional five hollow point rounds into the back of a man lying face down on the ground, having already been incapacitated and unarmed at that time, is indicative of excessive force. This, in and of itself, warrants a Federal review of the case.
You want to know why all of this bothers me. Because I believe in 2nd amendment rights and I could see how any individual who exercises that right could become a victim of an over zealous security-rep who lied to police and created a deadly scenario. You don't have to like who Erik Scott was, but does that justify the reckless behavior displayed by others involved in this shooting? Not to me it doesn't.
"Did you ever think that perhaps the Scott's dropped the lawsuit against Costco in an effort to get at some of the "real" evidence?"
>How is Costco being out of the case going to affect the Scott's ability to get evidence. They can still subpoena all the evidence they want. You make no sense.
"Perhaps they saw that there would have been evidence exposed in the Federal trial that may be a bit unsavory for them and thus decided they had better play some ball."
>What do you mean play ball? Costco did not pay anything to the Scott's. The Scott's simply let them out of the lawsuit. You make no sense.
Halo,
1st of all, only one officer, Mosher was giving ANY commands, and they were NOT hard to understand...
2nd, no shots were fired into the back as Scott was on the ground. The witnesses all said that the shots were fired as Scott was on his feet, and this was confirmed by the coroner.
3rd, the reports the police recieved before getting to Costco said that Scott was armed, NOT that he had pulled out the gun. An employee told him that he had to leave with his gun, and he refused, claiming to be a "green beret" which was a falsehood.
I believe in the 2nd amendment also, but as a weapons carrier, you MUST have some responsibility.
Scott showed no responsibility, but also a disregard for the law, and all his training both in his short military career and in his CCW classes.
Maybe she didn't show up because she was never served to appear? Did you not hear them when they said they never physically served her?
****
This always bothered me: SHE was the KEY witness to what happened and if memory serves correctly, the Scott Family attorneys were flippant about her whereabouts, etc. and that was why she wasn't served by EITHER side. THEY knew damn well where she was and she could have been served. I believe they said these things because their whole case would go to hell if they put the girlfriend on the stand at the inquest. And in this next matter, if she is called to testify, she will HAVE to attend or be found in contempt. My guess is she will mysteriously disappear again.
@devildog
Are you serious about the commands? You still stick by telling someone to drop it and then using the fact that they touched it as the reason to shoot? You dont see how it might be confusing to have an obese officer yelling to show your hands, drop it and get on the ground all at the same time? Is that really good cop work?
Next you said another straight up bold lie that no one testified to him being shot in the back on the ground. The coroner and Dr's that were called to testify to the location of where the bullets entered his body did only that. They explained where they entered and exited, but could not give any information as to where the body was at the time the shot was fired which was odd. She did however point out that one bullet entered in his buttocks and traveled up towards his chest. You wanna give me a magic bullet theory on that? Multiple witnesses testified that the was continually shot both after having nothing in his hands as well as being already dying on the ground. Your statements on here are careless for reals.
You also claim that an employee told him to leave which the employee, shai, also testified that he did not, nor did any other employee testify that they asked him to leave the store.
Det Munch
Please explain to me how it is troubling to you that the DA's office never had her served properly? Beyond that why is it surprising for her attorney to not want her to testify before a one sided hostile D.A. with no way of making sure the line of questioning is relevant? Look at the police themselves... they are afraid to even testify at inquests now that there is more than one attorney present even with representation in the court room.
willis, you seem to be that all knowing, all seeing, only person that knows anything here....Why didn't you testify since you know EXACTLY what happened?
When a cop says "show me your hands," show him your hands....Do not reach for anything.
When you pull out a gun, and the cop says "drop it," DROP IT!
Scott was shot in the back several times, but NOT while on the ground....The coroner did testify as to why the 1, and only 1 shot entered at an unpward trejectory...Scott was falling at the time of that shot....NOT ON THE GROUND.
By the way, multiple witnesses saw Scott DRAW the gun...not touch it....The gun was drawn, and fell to the ground when he was shot.
Shai did not tell Scott to leave, Shai called for a manager that made contact with Scott....Did you forget about that? The manager contacted Scott and told him he could not have a gun in the store.
During the inquest, the while Shai was on the stand, he stated that.
What inquest did you watch?
Are you serious that you condemn an officer for being overweight?
That is just plain discrimination, you are obviously a small minded and vile person if you think that because someone is overweight, they cannot be in a position of authority, and their words mean nothing.
@devildog
Sounds like maybe it hit too close to home on that one huh? Are you overweight also? Guess you can't stand when people point out where you are wrong. You are use to being judge and jury and thats final huh? All you did was further my point that no one ever asked him to leave the store genius.
I already pointed out the order was show your hands, drop it, get on the ground, get on the ground... and for some asenine reason you are trying to stick up for your fellow officer and say that its because he must have reached for it but thats the only reason huh? If that was the case then you are telling me that Mosher continued to give the command of get on the ground, get on the ground two more times after he drew his weapon? Even Mosher didnt remember saying to drop it. Im sure you missed that part too. Your witnesses that say he drew the gun all either worked at costco, had law enforcement backgrounds or wanna be law enforcement or were 75 years old and up. For every one of them you want to bring up there were several who said he never drew a gun and the bulk of people that testified turned away before. By the way none of those witnesses mentioned it being in a holster when you say he drew it on your boy in blue. You honestly think he would pull out a holstered gun and aim it at officers? Seriously?
How do you explain his cell phone being on the ground? Are you gonna eat your words when it comes out that all he had was a cell phone in his hands? Or you gonna eat a donut?